Hitchens On Why The Far Left Wouldn't Even Support Gore

[NATO AIR]

Christopher Hitchens makes a very important point. Austin Bay seconds it over at Glenn Reynolds.com...

Democrats need to wake up and smell the coffee...

http://www.washingtonprism.org/eng/showarticle.cfm?id=1
(More @ LINK)

Q - If there was a Democratic president on 9/11, would there have been a difference of opinion in the American left about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Not from people like Michael Moore (the American film director and strong critic of President Bush), who makes a perfectly good brownshirt [fascist]. Or Noam Chomsky. No, it would not. To them it would have been further proof that the ruling class just has two faces and one party. But I think, in the mainstream of the democratic and Republican parties, you would have seen an exact switch. Richard Holbrooke’s position (Holbrooke was Clinton's UN Ambassador and is a leading Democratic foreign policy thinker) would be Dick Cheney’s position. The ones in the middle would have just done a switch, finding arguments to support or criticize the war. In fact, I remember that people in the Clinton administration spoke of an inevitable confrontation coming with Saddam. They dropped this idea only because it was a Republican president. That is simply disgraceful. It is likewise disgraceful how many Republicans ran as isolationists against [former Vice-President] Al Gore in the 2000 elections. The only people who come out of this whole affair well are an odd fusion of the old left – the small pro regime change left – and some of the people known as neoconservatives who have a commitment to liberal democracy. Many of the neocons have Marxist backgrounds and believe in ideas and principles and have worked with both parties in power.

 

[William Joyce]

Hitchens is a Jew, and can thus be counted on to be a lefty when that suits him, and a neocon when that suits him. Chomsky's at least an honest Jew: he stays hard left, always, even when Israel gets in the way.